Modern World Theories - Essay Example

Critically evaluate and compare the theories: Liberalism, Marxism and Neo-Conservatism assessing in particular the perspective of each on human nature, the state, international institutions and order vs. justice. Introduction Three of the most influential theories of the modern world which are much used and little understood are the theories of Liberalism, Marxism and Neo-Conservatism. These are mutually opposing political and economic theories involving every aspect of the modern human being and, therefore, require a meticulous examination and comprehension. In an attempt to distinguish among these philosophic concepts, an extensive and critical analysis of these in their perspectives on human nature, the state, international institutions and order vs. justice would be most required. Thus, such an effort is made in this discussion to comprehend three of the most prominent theories of the modern world. As a first step, let us understand them in their popular definitions to initiate the discussion. Liberalism, as opposed to Marxism and Neo-Conservatism, is a "political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favouring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority [and] An economic theory in favour of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard" (Liberalism. 2008). Now, to understand another major modern theory, Marxism can be well defined as the "political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society" (Marxism. 2008). Another major political philosophy that came out, mainly in the US, as a rejection of social liberalism and the New Left movements is the Neo- Conservatism which is difficult to be defined, yet may be understood as one that "refers to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States, characterized by hawkish views on foreign policy and a lesser emphasis on social issues and minimal government than other strains of American conservatism" (Definition: Neoconservatism (United States). 2007). Now, to have a comprehensive idea of these philosophies, let us discuss them in detail. Liberalism In critical perspective, Liberalism, as opposed by the other political, cultural, social and economic theories of consideration, may be put in a high status in the modern context as it ensures maximum individual freedom in the democratic way of governments. Various characteristic features of the theory may be considered in favour of Liberalism. Among them the notable ones are the emphasis on individual freedom, opposition to the government regulation through the advocacy of free market, importance on the liberal government, democracy, and civil rights and the equality of opportunity to the individual. There so many values, elements, institutions, and other characteristics that buttress the great role of Liberalism. One of the primary considerations among them is its perspectives on human nature. Liberalism, in its radical social form, has been the champion of human liberty and all its perspectives of human being concentrated on this ultimate concept of the liberals. Human beings, when they are adult, mature persons to enjoy the freedom and selection of things most suiting their growth and progress, were allowed the freedom without the intervention of the government. Unlike the classical liberals who consider the individuals as able to assume the ways of developing their life, modern liberals cling to the idea about human nature "that we are basically moved by impersonal forces and have no capacity to initiate any improvements in our lives. Any such improvement has to come from the outside, and government, with its concentrated and massive coercive power, is the most promising candidate to bring about such improvement" (Machan 2005). When we consider the human nature as suggested by the liberalists, there arise two self opposing concepts. "First, there is a general postulate that rational self-interest underlies all human actions Second, there is also a recognition that rational self-interest more often than not does not characterize human motivation; instead, people are often driven by passions, irrational emotions and non-calculating convictions" (Holmes). These concepts are the basis of the moral foundation of liberalism. According to the liberalists, everybody is equal in the enjoyment of freedom as they are all equally capable of self development. However, is the concept about self interest only universal human nature "In addition to the claim of universal self-interest, there is another important liberal postulate about human behaviour: there are limits to human rationality and people are often irrational (e.g., emotional, passionate, vengeful, and envious)... Finally, the attitude of liberalism towards human nature is not one of pessimism, but of realism and cautious optimism" (Holmes). Another major consideration of the theory of the Liberalism is its perspectives of the state. We can very well understand that the most critical feature of the state according to Liberalism is its principle of jurisdiction. It may be understood that there is some area of supremacy and influence for the state and it does not cross this limit. The principles of Liberalism on state may be summarized as follows. "The first principle of the liberal theory of the state is that the state is not superior to other institutions. That is not to say that the state is an inferior institution The second principle of the liberal theory of the state is that the state ought to respect the fault principleThe third principle of the liberal theory of the state is the supremacy of law and adherence to established, proper procedures The fourth principle of the liberal theory of the state is that the power of the state ought to be fragmented and distributed amongst many centres" (Cooray). Liberty and its preservation is the chief source of the positive liberal theory of the state. This theory does not recognise the absolute state, but rather confirms the superior value of individual liberty. However, this does not fail to identify the threats of anarchy when the individual is given the ultimate freedom. The state, according to Liberalism, formulates its government and laws on the basis of written constitution and ensures maximum individual freedom. This theory separates the state and the church and allows the liberty of trade. The state of Liberalism is often considered as following a leissez-faire policy of government and economy. Thus, the liberalists have a clear perspective of the state and its functions. The major contributors it to the model of a liberal state were the ideas of Enlightenment and the French revolution. Now, we may consider the Liberalist ideas of the international institutions. "A number of recent developments have prompted a revival of interest in liberal theories of international relations, among them the spread of democratic institutions, economic liberalisation and the increasing significance of international institutions in many aspects of life" (Richardson 2002). Liberal theory is one that focuses on the prime position of the international institutions and it recognises the role of the international institutions in the preservation of international peace as crucial. The international institutions that interest the Liberalists the most are the UN, the European Union, the Organization of American States and the like. The theory has ever affirmed the great relevance of the international institutions. Even at the failure of the League of Nations, the theory has upheld the role of the United Nations and the European Union, the two successful international institutions after the World War II. Liberalism recognises the significance of such International Institutions in the International economic, politic, commercial, socio-cultural and other activities. Liberalism has clear perspectives about the order and justice system of the society. "The liberal concept of social justice is drawn mainly from egalitarian individualism: maximum freedom to pursue one's own plan of life, provided it doesn't interfere with the plans of others. Progressive conceptions are more socially informed and see individual plan's of life as bound up with those of others, both because values that influence perceptions of a good plan of life are embedded in and transmitted through culture; and because individual plans of lives influence the opportunities available to others." (Is Liberalism Progressive P. 3). Thus, there is a clear and evident contrastive relation between order and justice in the liberal theory. The individual freedom exists in contrastive relation to the order of the society which includes other individuals as well. Marxism The theory and practice of Marxism originated out of the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who propounded this idea. It holds that the "most important features of a society are its economic classes and their relations to each other in the modes of production of each historical epoch." (Marxism. 1995). There are many key ideas like the class struggle, proletariat and proletarian revolution, historical materialism and many more. However, let us direct our discussion towards Marxism and its views on the nature of human beings. In fact, all the theories those argue for the superiority of social and political order and liberal theory, as we have already seen, regard human nature as greedy, competitive and self-directed with all the individual freedom and this nature comes out of the ideas of impersonal market relations of bourgeois society. "Marxists reject this view of human nature and the "natural state" of human society. They argue that the liberal assumptions derive from, and seek to legitimize, the types of social relations that are specific to capitalist society. They do not amount, therefore, to "general," "universal" truths about human nature, but merely to a portrait of certain aspects of human behaviour that are typical of bourgeois society (e.g., possessive individualism and competitiveness). Marx's concept of a general "human nature" encompasses humankind's common material needs, as well as the potential for free development of intellectual, creative, and social needs and capacities" (Adkin 1987). Marxian concepts of human nature are elemental to Marx's critique of capitalism. His concept, as opposed to that of the liberalists, considers that the human nature has "the capacity for rational understanding, for moral judgement and action, for aesthetic creation or contemplation, for the emotional activities of friendship and love" (Macpherson p. 4). The human nature, according to Marxism may be well established, that the human beings can make or shape their own particular behavioural characteristics. This nature is created and developed by the social relations and the human beings have no existence other than that of the community or the society. According to this philosophy, "Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers - he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities - as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs - essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers" (Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General). Finally, it may be remarked that Marxism argues for "the positive abolition of private property, of human self-alienation... [and] therefore as the return of man to himself as a social, i.e., really human, being, a complete and conscious return which assimilates all the wealth of previous development" (Colletti P. 155). In the Marxist perspective, state stands between the working class and the social transformation. "In their writings on the state, Marx and Engels set themselves the task of demystifying it, of conquering the idea that the state is some kind of eternal being, in order to strip away the magical shroud in which capitalism has cloaked it." (Mitchinson 1994). The existence of the state in the Marxian practice is not always of a conflict as the proletariat assume the state as welfare state which is security coverage in many aspects. The issue with the state, for them, is that it upholds the capitalist principles in the attempt to make their lives uncomfortable. It is remarkable to consider that, "for Marxists, the state is something that first must be transformed and eventually overcome" (Tom 2005). The ultimate aim of this theory is the classless society. To consider the theory on the basis of international institutions, let us comprehend tat they do not come under the direct impact of these. Marxism is interested in the struggle for general cause of the people. It wants the people to join together and use their powers against the international forces that determine the class rule. The role of the International institutions, in the modern situations, is considered to be one of assistance to the economically backward classes. International existence of the revolutionary party is recognised. "The role of a revolutionary international will also be very important after a successful revolution, through appealing to workers throughout the world to support the revolution and to refuse to be used against it in military ventures by their own capitalist classes, and through making sure that the revolution spreads as rapidly as possible to other countries" (Beishon). A major area of consideration in the discussion of Marxism is the clash or conflict that exists between the justice and order. The theory as it is strives for the development of the condition of the working class by opposing the superior group and this done mainly through the class war. There is always the struggle for the existence of the equality and justice for the working class. The struggle results in the conflict with the existing order. The theory, by class war and proletarian Revolution, prepares the conflict between the justice system and the order of the day. Neo-Conservatism Finally, it is necessary that we discuss the theory of Neo-Conservatism to get a comprehensive idea of the discussion we have following. "As a heretical offshoot of liberalism, neoconservatism appealed to the same values and even many of the same goals-like, for example, peace and racial equality. But neoconservatives argued that liberal policies-for example, disarmament in the pursuit of peace, or affirmative action in the pursuit of racial equality-undermined those goals rather than advancing them. In short order, the heretics established themselves as contemporary liberalism's most formidable foes" (Muravchik 2007). Thus, it may be noted that as a theory it has its influence on the modern world, especially, due to its relation to the Republican political tradition of the US and it counters the political ideologies of the social liberalists and the New Left thinkers. The most significant role and the Neo-Conservatism is that it works "to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy" (Kristol 2003). There are many characteristic features of the concepts of the neo-conservatives that point to the limitation of the human nature in the attainment of certain goals. "There is a difference between trying to reform your fellow beings by the normal processes of logical demonstration, appeal and moral suasion -- there is a difference between that and passing over to the use of force or constraint. The former is something all of us engage in every day. The latter is what makes the modern radical dangerous and perhaps in a sense demented." (Life Without Prejudice. 1965, p. 161). In the economic concepts, too, these assumptions of the neo-conservatives about the nature of human nature reflected. "Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth." It is of pertinent consideration that we discuss the role and the concept of state in the modern political tradition. According to the "god father" of this theory, Irving Kristol, "Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom." Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not" (Kristol 2003). The neo-conservatives still believe, to certain extent, in the importance of the welfare state which means not that exists in the modern form. The role of the state is, thus, is not to provide the maximum benefit to the citizens, but interference of the state is limited to the most essential. The state model that exists for the neo-conservatism is that of the modern American government. Here, there is clear demarcation between the individual interest and the state intervention. To consider the perspectives of the theory about the International institutions, it may be remarked that it is one of the chief proponents of the ever-increasing role of the International institutions like the United Nations and others in the preservation of the world peace and in the modern context, of course, in the "war on terrorism." It has, all through the years, recognised the significant role of the international force for the cause of the international community. In considering the foreign policy of the Neo-Conservatives would prove the significance they give to the international institutions and these governments would follow a policy that place the country superior to the other countries. In the modern international situations, it is necessary, as we consider its views on the International institutions, to note some critical observations about its policy. "The neocons had a limitless faith in two tools: bombs for destruction and dollars for reconstruction. With their appalling ignorance of the complexity of society, they believed that these two tools were enough to reconstruct the region, and maybe the whole world. It was only a matter of political will, so they believed. The bombs caused the regime to flee, but the dollars have not been able to put it back together again" (Rockwell 2003). Thus, there are many such critical perspectives on its ideologies. The success of the theory is that other major theories like the Marxism and others failed to make international recognition. Liberalism, Marxism and Neo-Conservatism: a Comparative Analysis A comparison among the theories of Liberalism, Marxism and Neo-Conservatism is of great importance at this point of discussion as it would kindle the light upon the various perspectives on the concepts of human nature, state, international institutions and justice vs. order. As it is clear from the discussion, every theory has got characteristic ideologies regarding these concepts which may differ from each other in its meaning, range, scope or relevance and recognition by the international community. However, the perspectives of each theory are relevant to its existence and contribute greatly to the making of the political, economic, socio-cultural and such ideas in the modern humanity. The liberal view of the nature of human being which treats them as greedy, self driven, enjoying complete freedom and so on is opposed to the Marxian view which treats human nature as the result of human needs and the like, and differs from the Neo-Conservative view. In their perceptions of state and its role, too, the theories differ, each establishing its individual ideologies. It is evident from the discussion that the role of the state, in each theory, has differing aspects and every idea has its strengths as well as limitations. The Liberalists advocate for the minimum possible intervention of the state in the individual freedom allocated to its citizens whereas Marxists, with the ultimate aim of classless society, argue for the transformation and the gradual triumph over the state and the Neo-Conservatives do not encourage the current form of welfare state and seek for alternatives. In the same consideration, these theories have individual character in their perspectives on International institutions and the concept of justice vs. order. Thus, the significance of these variant theories can be comprehended on the basis of such a comparative analysis of their outlook on different aspects like the human nature and the like. Conclusion Not many would oppose the view that Liberalism, Marxism and Neo-Conservatism are three of the most influential theories of the modern world. In a pursuit of the elements that make these concepts very popular in the modern context, we identified various and definite perspectives of these theories on matters like the nature of human beings, concept of state and the International institutions and views on the opposition that exists between justice and order. In the ultimate conclusion, it is clear that every theory has its peculiar characteristic features and perspectives which mark it different from the other theories. Thus, the significance of these political, economic and social theories and practices may be comprehended in their peculiar characteristics. Every ideology holds certain concepts and values as pertinent to its existence and the development of the society depends greatly on the acceptance of their merits. This discussion, in its ultimate conclusion, holds the view that there are various points in every theory that make the concept distinct from others and the identification of those differences is essential in the judicious judgement of them. There are, certainly, strengths as well as limitations in the ideas of every theory. Also, no theory suits every situation and context. The most suitable is generally accepted in the background of a particular time and a place. It is this identification and understanding that is required. Bibliography ADKIN, Laurie E (1987). Marxism, Human Nature, and Society. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://bahai-library.org/books/marxism/marxism3.adkin.html BEISHON, Judy. Internationalism and After the Revolution. The Role of a Revolutionary Party. What is Marxism Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/party.html Colletti, L., Karl Marx: Early Writings. ed. Penguin. P.155. COORAY, Mark. The Liberal Theory Of The State. The Australian Achievement. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap162.htm Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General. Karl Marx. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm Definition: Neoconservatism (United States). (2004). Encyclopedia. [online]. Msn.com. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://groups.msn.com/WhatsNews/documents.msnwaction=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=172411 HOLMES, Stephen. The Moral Foundation of Liberalism, Bo LI. [online]. Perspective. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/13_083101/moral%20foundation.htm Is Liberalism Progressive Ch 2 Progressive Liberalism Unraveling ideologies, Professor Michael Freeden (4, 000). P. 3. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.ippr.org/uploadedFiles/research/projects/Directors'_Research_Team/Progressive_Liberalism.pdf KRISTOL, Irving (2003). The Neoconservative Persuasion. [online]. The weekly standard. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.aspidArticle=3000&R=785F27881 Life without Prejudice. 1965. Conservatism and Libertarianism: The Common Ground. P. 161. Liberalism. (2008). [online]. The free dictionary. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberalism MACHAN, Tibor R. (2005). Why Modern Liberalism Is in Retreat. [online]. Virginia viewpoints. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2005_09_4.html Macpherson, C. B. The Maximization of Democracy. In Essays on Democracy. p. 4. Marxism. (2008). [online]. The free dictionary. Last accessed 04 January 2007 at: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Marxism Marxism. (1995). Last accessed 04 January 2007 at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/marxism.html MITCHINSON, Phil (1994). Marxism and the state. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_and_state.html MURAVCHIK, Joshua (2007). The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism. [online]. Commentary. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/The-Past-Present-and-Future-of-Neoconservatism-10935 RICHARDSON, James L (2002). Abstract: Critical liberalism in international relations. [online]. Demetrius. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/41669 ROCKWELL, Llewellyn H (2003). Neo-Conservatism Explained. [online]. LewRockwell.com. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/neo-con-explained.html TOM (2005). Marxism and the problem of the state. [online]. Tom chances websites. Last accessed 04 January 2008 at: http://tom.acrewoods.net/research/philosophy/ideology/marxism-state Read More